Message-ID: <CAB=NE6XMO5faUUGFfp7e8i7_RQcwT-2+VfBvDcEdXYHO2Bao2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 16:48:02 -0800
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Michael Brown <mcb30@...e.org>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
	long.wanglong@...wei.com, qiuxishi@...wei.com,
	aryabinin@...tuozzo.com,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
	Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@...il.com>,
	Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...il.com>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Brenden Blanco <bblanco@...mgrid.com>,
	Pere Monclus <pmonclus@...mgrid.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/8] x86/init: Linux linker tables

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:25 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> On 02/02/2016 04:22 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>s>>
>>>> Should it be possible to resuse free_init_pages() and/or
>>>> free_reserved_area() only for routines (members in the array in this
>>>> case of a struct of fns) that don't meet our subarch once we're done
>>>> iterating over the routies and know we can discard things we know we
>>>> can drop? Through a cursory glance, *I think* its possible as-is, we
>>>> would just need easy access to the respective start and end addresses
>>>> and I guess there lies the challenge. Question is, is would that be
>>>> clean enough for us? Or are there other things you can think of that
>>>> perhaps might make this prospect cleaner later to add?
>>>>
>>>> I figure better ask now for architectural purposes than later after merged.
>>>
>>> I don't think its needed we iron out in a solution *now* to be able to
>>> free code we know we won't need at run time but having a solid
>>> understanding adding this feature later without much impact to users
>>> might be worthy. As such I was pursuing a very basic proof of concept
>>> to ensure this is possible first given I didn't hear back if folks
>>> were sure this might be possible. I don't think a proof of concept
>>> should take long so just want to get fleshed out.
>>>
>>
>> This applies to the specific subarch use rather than generic linker
>> tables, right?
>
> Well both, given that for instance the kernel frees unused kernel code
> using the __init section, so a neat generic section solution for this
> perhaps in consideration for the subarch might be worthy to consider.
> You had also suggested perhaps the linker table could be pivoted based
> on the subarch at one point too, so I gave that a though. It would
> make the freeing much easier but for run time it wouldn't fit well
> into the current design yet.

OK so I've decided that to make the Proof of Concept also immediately
useful I could try to convert one of the *existing* ad hoc
link tables to generic using this new solution. The POC will not be
required as part of the patch series, just knowing it works is all
that would be needed.

To be clear then what I'll do:

  * I'll be respinning this series *now* to incorporate all feedback
given but *will not post* until I also have a proof of concept of a
conversion done and tested that includes free unused code
  * Since the renaming paravirt_enabled() patches are separate but
folks agree with them I'll submit that as an independent series,
shortly
  * Since the patch x86/boot: add BIT() to boot/bitops." is
independent I'll submit as independent single patch, shortly

 Luis

Powered by blists - more mailing lists